Captain America Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry is going to increase troop levels (draft) , Bush stated he would keep an all volunteer military Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 You all know I am for GWB... Here is one thing from each candidate that annoyed me... When GWB said multiple times about Kerry saying "Wrong war, wrong place, & wrong time..." and Kerry having multiple positions on every subject. When Kerry said "I've always had only one position on Iraq". To me there was NO clear winner and there was NO clear loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry; "I have never wavered in my life" WHA WHA WHAT????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry also believes that we werent multilateral enough for Iraq but wants only bi-lateral talks with North Korea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Good debate. Kerry may have saved his campaign tonight. That's not to say his performance will turn the public in his favor. But he didnt get killed, either...which was a distinct possibility going in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Good debate. Kerry may have saved his campaign tonight. That's not to say his performance will turn the public in his favor. But he didnt get killed, either...which was a distinct possibility going in. 51675[/snapback] Were the "Backwoods Morons" watching you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 i looked at my watch and it took precisely 29 minutes for Kerry to use the word Viet Nam. John Kerry was clearly more prepared than President Bush. I heard Leher ask John Kerry at least twice to provide specific examples of how he would do things differently in Iraq, and neither time did he provide an answer. I don't know why Leher never asked Kerry why he voted against the 87Mil. for the troops. A few times....neither candidate really needed 2 minutes or 90 seconds to respond, so they filled their time with a LOT of repetition. Which was damaging to both,...but probably more so to Bush. I would say Kerry won the debate only because he was more prepared. Although I don't think Bush hurt himself simply by being very consistant in the message he has been stumping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 It was too scripted for my likening. Same as every other debate, i'm going to do this, i'm going to do that. One question... with what money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I think Kerry is the big loser here.. While his presentation skills were clearly superior to Bush's, I do think he left a lot to be desired in terms of content. The specific details were few and far between. He really needed to give people a reason to vote for him, and he didn't do that tonight. This was a wasted opportunity in that regard. Meanwhile, Bush just needed to avoid the big mistake, which he did, and I think he put Kerry on the defensive a few times. Kerry also had one statement tonight that could really come back to bite him in the ass, that being his remark that pre-emptive strikes should pass some sort of global test. If Bush chooses to pounce on it (and judging from his response in the debate, I think his campaign will be all over it), it could be catastrophic for Kerry. He and the Dems already has significant problems on the issue of national defense and this statement will certainly be used by the Bush administration to paint him as a far left candidate who will outsource US defense to the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidey Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry is going to increase troop levels (draft) , Bush stated he would keep an all volunteer military 51664[/snapback] Man you had those right wing blinders on full force tonght. Kerry realizes we need more special forces thats how you win war on terror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynical Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 It was too scripted for my likening. Same as every other debate, i'm going to do this, i'm going to do that. One question... with what money? 51691[/snapback] By rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthy. He has said so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I think Kerry is the big loser here.. While his presentation skills were clearly superior to Bush's, I do think he left a lot to be desired in terms of content. The specific details were few and far between. He really needed to give people a reason to vote for him, and he didn't do that tonight. This was a wasted opportunity in that regard. Meanwhile, Bush just needed to avoid the big mistake, which he did, and I think he put Kerry on the defensive a few times. I wholheartedly disagree that Kerry is a big loser. If you gage this debate on points, it was close to a draw. But you cannot overlook the fact that this was a HUGE accomplishment for Kerry. Kerry's base will finally be whipped up. His performance tonight is what the Dems needed and he came through for them. He was an unknown to many prior to tonight, and he finally landed on the scene big time. We all pay attention to and are much more knowledgeable about politics and the issues. We are all now watching the talking heads on the cable channels. The casual viewer at home saw a guy who seemed to have his stevestojan together, changed the channel, and is in bed by now. Also, the warning light tactic backfred on the Republicans. It forced Kerry to be succinct, and he came off better because of it. Fellow Repubs -- too many in our party were sitting around this week ready to ring the death bell for Kerry's campaign. The opportunity was there, of course, but people were naive to think Kerry was going to bomb in a debate. This was a huge wakeup call for the Dems and if we don't get our act together this thing is going to swing. Despite all of the bumbling by Kerry & Co., they clearly had this date circled on the calendar and they are now locked and loaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted October 1, 2004 Author Share Posted October 1, 2004 Man you had those right wing blinders on full force tonght. Kerry realizes we need more special forces thats how you win war on terror. 51723[/snapback] In addition he said he was going to increase troop levels substantially , and just how do you think he was going to do this? Already we are using reserves for active duty .Tell me how he plans to increase troop levels you evidently did not hear him say that.I did hear him say we need more special forces .He wants to increase the size the overall size of the military obviously you must have been out for a beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry is going to increase troop levels (draft) , Bush stated he would keep an all volunteer military 51664[/snapback] Where did you get the draft talk from? Rangel, who himself said it was a ploy on his part to generate a look at the racial makeup of the military? Kerry has never said he would institute a draft and is opposed to it. But Kerry wants more troops to volunteer. That's about more recruitment by offering better incentives and advancement into those special forces. You're putting words in his mouth, like a lot of people have done. Bush would like to keep the military all-voluntary, which is tactical in being able to avoid putting guys in a war who didn't want to be there. If we continue to overstretch, the draft may be a matter of necessity, tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Man you had those right wing blinders on full force tonght. Kerry realizes we need more special forces thats how you win war on terror. 51723[/snapback] Yeah right... he's going to double the size of Special Forces. I remember the SF recruiter coming into the barracks on a weekly basis begging for people to try out. Nobody was interested so they dropped the rank requirement from E-5 down to E-1. Even then they still were having trouble getting people to try out. Maybe Kerry would like to lower the standards more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Where did you get the draft talk from? Rangel, who himself said it was a ploy on his part to generate a look at the racial makeup of the military? Kerry has never said he would institute a draft and is opposed to it. But Kerry wants more troops to volunteer. That's about more recruitment by offering better incentives and advancement into those special forces. You're putting words in his mouth, like a lot of people have done. Bush would like to keep the military all-voluntary, which is tactical in being able to avoid putting guys in a war who didn't want to be there. If we continue to overstretch, the draft may be a matter of necessity, tho. 51747[/snapback] He got that idea from the deep, dark, delusional recesses of his own mind. Same place all his ideas come from. Don't encourage him...just don't make eye contact and walk on by, like you would any other drooling idiot you bumped into... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Yeah right... he's going to double the size of Special Forces. I remember the SF recruiter coming into the barracks on a weekly basis begging for people to try out. Nobody was interested so they dropped the rank requirement from E-5 down to E-1. Even then they still were having trouble getting people to try out. Maybe Kerry would like to lower the standards more. 51754[/snapback] Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoyaBill Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Thank you. 51807[/snapback] Tangently (thinking outloud): What about Rumsfeld's/RMA proponent's plan to break down the size of units, making them lighter and faster? Not neccesarily trained in spec ops but in moving faster, and making decisions in the field faster (as info is available rapidly). Is it neccesary to fight an organization like Al-Queda? On China: The problem is that if you use China to find the solution, then China's role as a hegemond increases...something the US has always been against. I'm undecided on which is worse: increasing the PRC's influence in Asia, or risking not being able to contain North Korea. On the debate: I hate hearing politicians (both of them did this - hell, all of em' do it) over simplify the GWOT by saying things like: "They only hate us because we're free." I think by under-thinking the problem, and casting as enemies as only hate-filled barbarians, we lose debate on non-traditional ways to win and risk the military sin of underestimating their tactics. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Tangently (thinking outloud): What about Rumsfeld's/RMA proponent's plan to break down the size of units, making them lighter and faster? Not neccesarily trained in spec ops but in moving faster, and making decisions in the field faster (as info is available rapidly). Is it neccesary to fight an organization like Al-Queda? On China: The problem is that if you use China to find the solution, then China's role as a hegemond increases...something the US has always been against. I'm undecided on which is worse: increasing the PRC's influence in Asia, or risking not being able to contain North Korea. On the debate: I hate hearing politicians (both of them did this - hell, all of em' do it) over simplify the GWOT by saying things like: "They only hate us because we're free." I think by under-thinking the problem, and casting as enemies as only hate-filled barbarians, we lose debate on non-traditional ways to win and risk the military sin of underestimating their tactics. ... 52348[/snapback] I can tell you as a fact, take it to the bank, that that is not the position of the Bush administration towards GWOT. The problem with National Security issues is that they are impossible to adequately explain in that kind of format. And GWOT is a tremendously complicated effort. From what I saw, didn't watch all of it-Kerry either did not pay any attention at the National Security briefings he (grudgingly) received, or he planned all along to out and out lie. Kerryites? I'm sorry, but that's what your boy did. And in some areas there isn't going to be much Bush can do about it. I'd be pi$sed too. And if you let this guy become in charge of our security, we're screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 From what I saw, didn't watch all of it-Kerry either did not pay any attention at the National Security briefings he (grudgingly) received, or he planned all along to out and out lie. 52406[/snapback] I can second that. Currently job hunting in the field, being invited to work on anti-terrorism related projects that Kerry has specifically said aren't being done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts